University
of California, Berkeley
Center for Labor Research and Education
Institute of Industrial Relations

Labor Center
Reporter
Number 173, February 1986

ACADEMIA'S J.P. STEVENS: THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

In 1978, the California
legislature passed the Higher' Education Employer-Employee Relations Act,
establishing a legal framework to support, collective bargaining for the
University of California's 112,000 employees. However, in 1982, the University
of California Regents voted 11-9 to oppose collective bargaining for its
workers as not in the best interests of the University. That decision
set a course that would involve University administrators in a variety
of unfair labor practices. Nancy. Elnor, President of the University Council/American
Federation of Teachers, (UC/ AFT) who represents 2,000 non-Academic Senate
faculty and librarians at UC, charges, "The University is waging
the most vicious anti-union campaign since Reagan busted PATCO. They treat
their employees with contempt."

Since 1982, Public
Employee Relations Board administrative law judges (PERB) have convicted
the University of unfair labor practices such as refusing permission to
display union banners, selling insurance to unionized employees at higher
rates than those for non union employees, denying workers their rights
to union representation at disciplinary hearings, banning union literature
from the University internal mail system, and refusal to bargain over
changes in the working conditions of unionized employees (cases # 14013,
14118, 14139, 14143, 14154, 14166, 14258, 14280, 14288, 14293, 15038,
15047, 15057, 15065, 15071, 15074, 15196, 16014: 18 separate decisions).
For comparison, J.P. Stevens, a Southern textile manufacturer who was
for years the nation's leading labor law violator, took 20 years to compile
20 National Labor Relations Board unfair labor practice judgments. The
Association of Graduate Student Employees alone has 286 unfair labor practice
charges pending against a UC reclassification of their job title that
could change their status as employees, making them ineligible to form
a union. PERB issued complaints against UC in the first two cases in January.
The AFT has unfair labor practice charges going to trial against UC in
January for changing working conditions of non-tenured lecturers without
negotiating with the union.

$800,000 Spent On Anti-Union Attorneys and Consultants-Although
UC has 28 labor relations lawyers on its staff, it also spent nearly $1
million on outside attorneys who labor organizations characterize as "union
busters." A Daily Californian article reported that in 1980 alone,
UC paid $500,000 to the Corbett, Kane & Berk law firm for litigating
questions of what groups of UC employees would be "appropriate"
for bargaining units. In some cases, this postponed union representation
elections for years.

Laborers' representative
Pat Hallahan described how this strategy delays his organizing of 196
protective service officers at the UC-managed Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
UC hired former Corbett partner Gerry Shaeffer, who argued at 1985 PERB
hearings that the highly trained officers should be lumped into a bargaining
unit with gardeners and comparatively unskilled service employees.

"The hearing
alone took eight days," said Hallahan, "The university appealed
it to the full PERB after we won at the hearing officer level." After
the initial ruling against Shaeffer's contention that the officers should
vote together with less skilled workers. UC switched arguments in its
appeal, claiming the officers should now be lumped into the technical
worker unit, even though police officers have their own bargaining units
on UC campuses. Hallahan criticized the University's appeal: "It's
to buy time, it's an effort to thwart unionization, and it's a union-busting
tactic." An election is not yet scheduled, 17 months after the petition
was filed. Public records show that UC has already paid Shaeffer $43,000.

UC Battles Union
Representation Elections--After UC finished litigating the "appropriate"
units of employees, the AFT, AFSCME, and the printing and building trades
unions petitioned for representation elections. However, UC management
carried out its November 1982 instructions from the Regents "to advise
employees of its judgment that collective bargaining is not in the best
interests of the University." Testimony at PERB hearings (#8-15065)
revealed that UC sent 15 letters to the homes of the 31,000 employees
voting on AFSCME representation, warning that unions could cause loss
of individual freedom, strikes, and high union dues. UC also trained supervisors
and managers to speak against the union. Although AFSCME won bargaining
rights for 19,000 clerical, 7,000 service, and 3,000 patient care technical
workers, it lost an election among 2,000 technical employees, and the
UC managed Livermore Laboratory defeated unions for its 3,500 scientists,
technical and service employees.

Public records reveal
the University hired outside consultants Brown & Burke to assist UC
in preparing letters that were mailed to the homes of 1,800 eligible employees
during the AFT campaign for the non-tenured lecturers. Although public
records show that UC paid the Brown firm $103,000, the lecturers chose
AFT by 2-1. UC also sent a series of nine letters to the homes of 6,700
employees during AFT and AFSCME elections among two units of researchers.
One letter showed possible union dues of $700 a year based on researcher
salaries of $80,000, when researchers average $30,000 a year in wages.
State labor law also mandates that union membership and the resulting
dues are entirely voluntary. The AFT obtained labor relations handbooks
that UC gave to professors on how to talk to the researchers they supervise
about the union. AFSCME lost a November 1985 vote of 3,100 staff researchers.
The 3500 academic appointment researchers cast ballots on AFT representation
in January (results to be announced in early February).

Hardball Bargaining--
Those unions winning bargaining rights, including AFSCME, AFT, and
the skilled trades, negotiate against UC's adversarial policies. For instance,
two years after winning the election, the AFT has not yet finalized a
lecturers contract with UC. When AFT negotiators sought to link a UC benefits
improvement to other issues, UC unilaterally implemented the improvements
for non-union employees and sent lecturers a letter claiming that collective
bargaining had delayed their benefits. "The University is behaving
as if it wants to reverse the union's gains in this unit by stalling on
benefits and trying to bargain a bad contract," Elnor said.

AFSCME faces the same
tactic. "For us, it's become an annual ritual," said Libby Sayre,
President of AFSCME #3211, representing clerical and allied service workers
at UC Berkeley. "UC management delays pay increases for union-represented
employees, and blames it on the union in their employee literature and
newsletters. Fortunately we have a pretty well informed constituency;
they figure it out. And it now takes much less persuasion than it used
to convince employees that they need a union."

UC, Unions, and the Future-The
UC Regents, managers, and administrators could be contributing to UC worklife
by developing positive collective bargaining procedures. The Regents and
managers have instead implemented their advance judgment against collective
bargaining. Apparently the UC administrators do not trust their employees'
right to express an independent judgment about unionization.

Unilateral and adversarial
management policies lead to adversarial labor relations. If the UC Regents
authorize additional funds for special labor relations purposes, their
goals should first be publicly defined, and a responsible management position
should be required in the development of collective bargaining relationships.
Most importantly, the words of the Regents that "collective bargaining
is not in the best interests of the University" should be reconsidered.

-John Paul Williams

This article does
not necessarily represent the opinion of the Center for Labor Research
and Education, the Institute of Industrial Relations, or the University
of California. The author is solely responsible for its contents. Labor
organizations and their press associates are encouraged to reproduce any
LCR article for further distribution.